look men dont throw the asid use paintball guns is safe and fair and you can put the asid in the paintballs lol.Ucan shoot them up to 200 feet and really get the decks of the dam killers!!!!!!!!!!!use paintball guns use them it will help a lot.dam japs and anyone the kills them for no reasen should be stoped!!!!!!

Well first off, Paintball guns are technically a firearm and a weapon. Shooting one at people without the consent of the other person is a criminal act and a felony.
Secondly they don't make butyric acid paintballs as they are toxic.
Thirdly, paintballs sometimes break in the gun when shot creating a stink and exposure to the shooter.
And fourth, "asid" is spelled ACID.

Of course on the otherhand if the SSCS used them the Japanese Coast Guard would open fire on them with real guns....Hmmmm
On second thought, Yeah USE paintball guns, lets see what happens!

NO, NO, NO. I think stopthekilling is a genius. He or she should go back to seashepherd.org, where he belongs, and share his paintball asid idea.

Please tell them to get some sharks with laser beams on their heads. The sharks can cut the harpoon lines.

They should do like Al Qeada and wear bombs out on the Steve Irwin that will stop them.

Firstly bad grammar and spelling is no excuse for being offensive. The term "jap" is a derogatory and highly offensive term to anyone of Japanese descent (akin to the racial slurs made towards African Americans). Please be more considerate about your language in the future.

Now as for the paintball gun idea, as the crew of the Japanese vessel are neither consenting to being shot at by them, nor necessarily wearing eye protection (obviously they will be considering the geographic location of the vessel, but there is nothing FORCING them to wear it) it is highly dangerous and in fact a felony as Ophidian pointed out to do so. Also getting acid into the balls is troublesome.

A much better idea would be to make a primitive mortar cannon out of lighter fluid and some drainpipe tubing to launch the bottles they already use. However as this could technically be classed as ordnance, I'm not sure on how the laws on that work. Not that I am recommending it, I'm just making a point.

quote:

Originally posted by V4sH369:
...
A much better idea would be to make a primitive mortar cannon out of lighter fluid and some drainpipe tubing to launch the bottles they already use. However as this could technically be classed as ordnance, I'm not sure on how the laws on that work. Not that I am recommending it, I'm just making a point.

Someone did come up with a workable "spud gun" but it was never used. I suspect because the accuracy was not good enough.

quote:

Originally posted by nbrownfzi:

quote:

Originally posted by V4sH369:
...
A much better idea would be to make a primitive mortar cannon out of lighter fluid and some drainpipe tubing to launch the bottles they already use. However as this could technically be classed as ordnance, I'm not sure on how the laws on that work. Not that I am recommending it, I'm just making a point.

Someone did come up with a workable "spud gun" but it was never used. I suspect because the accuracy was not good enough.

Dang...violent much?

quote:

Originally posted by sagebrush57:

quote:

Originally posted by nbrownfzi:

quote:

Originally posted by V4sH369:
...
A much better idea would be to make a primitive mortar cannon out of lighter fluid and some drainpipe tubing to launch the bottles they already use. However as this could technically be classed as ordnance, I'm not sure on how the laws on that work. Not that I am recommending it, I'm just making a point.

Someone did come up with a workable "spud gun" but it was never used. I suspect because the accuracy was not good enough.

Dang...violent much?

Here's what they came up with. Scroll down to "Airgun Experiment" and see what they came up with and why they didn't use it:

http://animal.discovery.com/vi...wars-deleted-scenes/

Thnx for that link.
To be honest I find it a bit weird they dont use it for the safety risk involved, if adjusted to throw like, 20% further than a human could I doubt it would be more risky than just the useless throwing they've been doing. It's not like throwing is without risk, imagine throwing a bottle at someone's head.

quote:

Originally posted by CreyZ:
Thnx for that link.
To be honest I find it a bit weird they dont use it for the safety risk involved, if adjusted to throw like, 20% further than a human could I doubt it would be more risky than just the useless throwing they've been doing. It's not like throwing is without risk, imagine throwing a bottle at someone's head.

That's exactly what they strive to avoid.

quote:

That's exactly what they strive to avoid.

What, hitting someone? Well, if thats why they arent using that 'cannon' they shouldnt be throwing either.

quote:

Originally posted by CreyZ:

quote:

That's exactly what they strive to avoid.

What, hitting someone? Well, if thats why they arent using that 'cannon' they shouldnt be throwing either.

Not so. A thrower knows exactly what they are aiming at and can adjust for movement of the small boat. A spud gun is inaccurate and dangerous - it could blow apart under pressure.

They've never hit or injured a whaler using the current method. The ICR has only reported three injuries and that was due to their "research" activities

Well I disagree

If you look at those throwing moments, they hardly look where they are throwing, and more than often they couldnt even look on the deck if there was someone there. But I guess a spudgun is on the edge, since throwing bottles on a deck is already pretty irresponsible.
I doubt they will get enough freedom to try something new anyway.